Anti-vaxxers crumble as every prediction fails to come true

I don't think your assessment is correct.

Why have you chosen that metric?

 

You BSing forum. VAERS is negative reports and not concluding the vaccine is responsible.

Present your evidence.

 

Can't admit error?

 

No error here.

 

Actually the 1 in 800 number came from a later review of the data from the Moderna and Pfizer trials. This review was performed by heavily biased authors where the definitions of severe adverse effects were altered, as well as some p-hacking, to make the data appear worse than it was.

A more recent study evaluated the risk of 13 different adverse events following the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines, as well the Oxford/AstraZeneca adenovirus-vector vaccine. The researchers analyzed datasets that encompassed 99 million vaccinated people and 242 million total vaccine doses. They compared frequency of adverse events against rates expected before getting a vaccine for Covid-19.

The study, as expected did confirm links between the vaccines and extemely rare occurrences of myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and a particular form of stroke called cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. The study confirmed that these SAE’s were not occurring at the rate as stated by the authors of the review — 1 in 800. One gets a more complete picture of side-effects when looking at 99 million vaccinated people as opposed to the much smaller studied in the Moderna/Pfizer studies.

Other adverse events also identified as potential safety signals included immune thrombocytopenic purpura and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. These events were extremely rare, however, and the study’s authors noted that additional research is needed to determine if they are linked to vaccination or have any clinical relevance whatsoever. The study concluded that most of the newly identified safety signals were related almost entirely to the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine that was never approved in the USA, and to a lesser extent the first dose of the Moderna vaccine. They didn’t see the signals following further doses, not did they see them after the Pfizer vaccine that was more widely used.

Most of the adverse events mentioned above were extremely rare. For example, the association between the first dose of Moderna and acute inflammation of the brain and spinal cord would be 1 case per 1.75 million vaccinated.

One should also pay attention to the fact that the adverse events identified in the study are not unique to covid-19 vaccines. Similar risks are correlated with longer-established vaccines AND the diseases they protect against. For example, in terms of the increased risk of developing myocarditis after receiving a covid-19 vaccine is estimated to occur in 1 to 10 people per million in the month following vaccination. The risk of developing myocarditis after being infected with covid-19 is 40 occurrences per million. Vaccines mitigate this risk due lessening any severe symptoms on might have after getting covid-19.

As opposed to the biased review where the 1 in 800 number came from, this study of almost 100 million people shows that there are real but RARE risks to vaccinations and the benefits far outweigh these risks for those who are elderly or have pre-conditions that make them vulnerable to severe covid-19. Preconditions like diabetes and obesity are very prevalent in the USA. It takes studies with huge numbers of people to get at the truth, not a review by biased authors skewing data from the Moderna/Pfizer trials. That’s science.

https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q488

 

Yes, one of many.

 

You are incorrect. The vast majority of people refusing to consume this inferior product are current in all of their necessary vaccines. The term is not only false; it is fed to the gullible to rebleat for the purpose of villainizing those who refuse to consume it. Another false term used was "Trying to kill grandma".

I understand why the sick, frail, and elderly may consider consuming this product. I even understand young people taking it because politicians used fear tactics to sell it. I don't understand why people would still be persistent in spite of 3 years of data.

Back to the main issue: What was the level of risk for young, healthy people before the product became available?

 

If you are selling a product meant to mitigate risk, shouldn't we know the risk we are trying to mitigate?

 

Nope and furthermore I am not interested in your opinion on the matter.

Go fetch it yourself.

 

I already did. Its close to zero. If you are not interested in the actual science, why are you participating in this discussion?

 

That the claim that the study was biased is pure made up false nonsense they did not fudge the numbers of the Phase III clinical trial ... there is no bias in the number 1 in 800 had a severe adverse reaction . If there was bias in the conclusions .. that would be a different thing .. but this is not bias in the numbers reported. Absolute made up nonsense on your part running around claiming "Science". Please tell us how the Data was "skewed"

Your study. does not have anywhere close to the gravitas of the phase III Clinical Trial data . and you don't even know what you are supposed to be examining which is not adverse events .. but Severe adverse Events .. You don't give any methods .. numbers to support your 1-10 in one million figure which is an absurd range .. complete nonsense number as the calculation is simple .. number people jabbed divided by number of SAR .. in this case Myocharditis/pericharditis .. which is going to make up 50% or more.

So for shts and giggles lets take this number seriously -- take an average of 5 per million .. and compare this the SAR number in the phase III clinical trials .. myocharditis 50% -= 600 per million

5 per million vs 600 per million- what does that tell you .. ? one of the two is way out of the ball park ridiculous nonsense.. and that the ridiculous nonsense study is not the Phase III clinical Trial data. .. the question being not is your study wrong .. but by how much.

Then I go have a look at your study .. and it does not say what you say it does .

The above claim of yours does not exist in the study what it does say is ..

but does not give any numbers.

The problem here is that you did not understand the study you were reading .. nowhere does it state that there is an insignificant risk of myocharditis from the Jab .. to the contrary your study confirmed a "Significantly higher Risk" but does not gives us any numbers your 1 in 10 per million something you made up and tried to attribute to this study.

and for the record -- I know personally someone who went into the hospital with myocharditis .. the hospital denied that it was from the Jab --and as this was the rule rather than the exception unfortunate .. and obviously if someone has had both covid and the Jab they record it as Covid caused rather than Jab caused .. the data set thus completely ridiculously biased .. something that is not true of the Phase III Clinical Trials .. which if they were biased .. would be reporting a lower number than actual .. meaning the number is greater than 1 in 800.

but we need not worry about your study .. as the numbers you gave are not from the study in which you claim they are from .. a complete made up falsehood.

 

Your the one "BSing" You were the one who was completely wrong .. I never concluded anything from VAERS .. never mind that the Jab is responsible for something .. and you were given the Evidence .. Phase III Clinical Trial Data showed 1 in 800 SAR from the Jab.

And you can find more evidence in the link from Much Ado .. desperately trying to trash the Phase III Clinical Trial Date but ends up producing a study that says

Much ado's study didn't give any numbers like I did but the conclusion is funny - contradicting his own claims .. .. and completely contrary to the Gov'ts claim of insignificant risk .. and your claims to similar effect.

Wassup Langley .. can't admit your error ?

Still waiting to admit your error in relation to the Sweden study .. showing lockdowns did squat .. kind of ran away from that post didn't you.

 

Uhuh, show it please.

Ludicrous non sequitur. I ask you to get your own data and you come up with that horseshit?

 

Unfriendly replies only reveal ones inability to defend a position on merit. Im not selling a pharma product. The burden is on you. Im selling a healthy diet and daily activity. I can cite long term studies going back centuries.

The vast majority of those with severe covid symptoms had existing conditions.

 

Yes, ~ 94% had one or more of the preconditions listed by the CDC as resulting in persons being at high risk to Covid.

 

No, not ‘made-up’ nonsense.

The two phase three trials were Randomly Controlled Trials (RCT’s) which demonstrated, via comparing a group who received vaccines against a group that did not receive vaccines, that the frequency of serious adverse events was low (1.0% in the mRNA-1273 arm and 1.0% in the placebo arm). There was no statistical difference in serious adverse events between the vaccine and placebo groups. I would have to say these two studies are more powerful than the reanalysis that proclaimed 1 in 800. See below.

The 1 in 800 reanalysis made the huge leap that 1 in 800 people who received the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines ended up having either life-threatening experiences and/or long-term effects or both. This is a causal statement. This seems to be what you are doing as well in terms of conflating that all the covid-19 vaccines cause severe adverse events (SAE’s). There was absolutely nothing in this reanalysis that demonstrated causation. Fraiman et al did not demonstrate that the SAE's were caused by the vaccines as opposed to chance alone; nor did they address if there was anything else that would account for an adverse event in the vaccine group.

To determine what a 'serious adverse event of special interest' was in the reanalysis, they relied on the subjective opinions of two clinical reviewers. That is not good methodology. The two RCT’s defined what a serious adverse event was based on pre-approved definitions and the reanalysis should have been based on those definitions. Fraiman et al devised their own list, with their own definitions.

Good science does not involve manipulating data to fit the hypothesis. Many experts have pointed out potential p-hacking in the reanalysis which is manipulating the data to make results look statistically significant when they are not. There are quite a few flaws in Fraiman et al's study and the results do not support their claims.

I don't have the time to post all the flaws and criticism here, so will link to them.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-fail-vaccine-publishes-antivax-propaganda/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dont-do-this

https://healthfeedback.org/claimrev...ms-about-benefits-risks-covid-19-vaccination/

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/...of-special-interest-in-randomized-trials.html

The other point that should be emphasized is that since the publication of the Pfizer/Moderna studies, a huge amount of research has been published related to the vaccines and side-effects. One study, based on flawed data analysis, does not negate the huge amount of research that states that serious adverse events are extremely rare. It seems that those who are anti-covid vaccines only concentrate on research that supports their beliefs and simply ignore the rest.

You stated:

I am well aware that we are discussing severe adverse advents which is what the study I presented is discussing — myocarditis, pericarditis, GBS etc are all severe adverse events.

Of course RCT’s have more gravitas than an observational study. The study I was discussing has more gravitas than a biased reanalysis of data. Observational studies can evaluate large number of people for longer periods of time and can reveal many things that short RCT’s with less subjects can. After billions of doses, there has been so much more learned than from the two third phase RCT’s which only included the 36,930 people who received a vaccine. Fraiman et al cited non-RCT data in their reanalysis including from VAERS which I believe one of the links quoted as being ‘dumpster diving’. Fraiman et al did not reference one SINGLE non-RCT showing the benefits of vaccines. That is biased. One can only reach the conclusion that the two Phase 3 studies and the study to which I am referring have more ‘gravitas’ than a biased methodologically flawed reanalysis.

It is myocarditis, not myocharditis. It is pericarditis, not pericharditis.

The phase 3 trial data clearly indicated that there was no significant difference between the vaccine group and the placebo group in terms of severe adverse events. None of what you said makes any sense, so I will ignore it, except for one comment.

That is incorrect. That is basically saying every single SAR reported by vaccinated people is caused by the vaccine. That’s not very scientific because not every SAR is actually caused by the vaccines. From the Phase 3 trials, there was no difference between the vaccine and placebo groups which a statement that does not support your very wrong statement. The phase 3 RCT’s were actually looking at effectiveness of the vaccines and any potential safety signals; causation was not involved. When safety signals go above a pre-determined threshold, research studies are immediately stopped until further investigation occurs.

You stated:

You didn’t actually look at the study at all.

A significantly ‘higher’ risk does not mean that the risk isn’t rare. The study concludes with

The problem is, and my mistake, is that I linked to a synopsis of the study rather than the complete study. Obviously, you haven’t bothered to look at the complete study before commenting.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24001270?via=ihub

The numbers for Guillain-Barré syndrome are below. As you can see, there were no significant results except for the Oxford/Astra-Zeneca vaccine. You can’t say vaccines are significantly likely to cause the SAE of GBS for all covid-19 vaccines in light of these results. What the research demonstrated that there is a safety signal that is statistically significant for one of the vaccines. It still means this SAE is extremely rare and the safety signal warrants further investigation.



If you look at the complete study, as I have said there are potential safety signals for pericarditis and myocarditis. Both of these adverse effects are rare and statistical significance doesn’t mean that they are not rare in the population. It seems which vaccine was given and which of the doses made a difference. This is what they should be looking at — why one type of vaccine has more SAE’s than others. The other thing is that current evidence indicates that post-vaccine myocarditis is typically mild and self-resolves quickly. This risk is also much lower than the risk of heart complications after getting COVID-19 itself, which can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease for up to one year.

It is true that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been associated with an increased risk of myocarditis, particularly among young males, but the research shows that these occurrences are rare.

I know you are likely to come back with some sarcastic and nasty mocking remarks which I will likely ignore. I have provided further comments related both to the Fraiman 1 in 800 study and the more recent study with millions of pieces of data.

It is clear that you are going to ignore the multitude of studies that agree with the rare occurrence of severe adverse events; conflate that the vaccines cause all the serious adverse events with absolutely no proof; ignore the fact that the study you chose to focus on is methodically questionable in many ways; and will continue conflate statistical significance of rare events into being common events which is not true.

Those who choose to read this can either accept it or not; readers can take it or leave it. I think I have presented some ideas here that represent vaccine research more reliably than your snarky sarcastic comments.

I guess @Betamax101 ’s signature is true in your case — "You cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into."

 

I was addressing the risk of damage to one's long-term health, not just the risk of hospitalization and death. Even for a healthy 50-year-old, the risk of the vaccine is far less than the risk of catching covid and having a bad outcome. Maybe that will change with future variants. Perhaps the worst is over.

 

Indeed. They're prepared to ignore even the most obvious facts.

 

Yes, it does seem you can't admit to even a small error. Why?

 

I haven’t made any errors. I have reviewed the data and formed my own judgements.

 

Which are in error! Hilarious.

 

You do know that the act of reviewing the data and forming your own judgements doesn't mean you haven't made errors because you actually have -- repeatedly.

 

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

Holy Carp talk about spaghetti on the wall fallacy. Is a simple fact... the Phase III Clinical Trial Data showed 1 in 800 SAR ..

You claimed 1-10 per million myocharditis ? but this was not to be fond in the study you gave .. . and contrary to Gov't claims of insignificant risk .. the study claimed a significantly higher risk ..just not giving numbers

Sorry friend .. the Phase III Clinical data stands your study of 100 million people that you did not understand did not say what you claimed it did.

then watching you run around picking out typo's as if this constitutes an argument for something .. pretending it shows you know something about science ? Then posting numbers for Guillain-Barré syndrome - as if this has something to do with correcting your myocharditis error .. oh .. I see a red line .. did I spell it wrong again .. LOL .. sorry mate just fishing for typo tyrants ..

The funny thing is .. you know .. for us scientists .. is that a Phase III Clinical Trial Data is going to be far better than data from a flawed data set over 100 million people.

So .. even if your 1 per million claim in the study was True .. which it was not .. not to be found in the study .. and in fact the reverse true as they are not going to call 1 in 1 million significant. .. sorry .. but either way .. we still have to default to the Phase III Clinical Trial .where we know we have an uncorrupted data set .. KK ..

I quoted from your study .. The study you say I didn't actually look at at all - you attribute amazing skills to me .. how do you figure I managed to quote from your study .. if I didn't actually look at the study at all ? .. and what does this ridiculous silliness have to do with the fact that the Data from the Phase III Clinical Trials .. is what it is .. no bias . .just counting .. there was no changing the data during some fictional reanalysis that you made up for effect .. the data is . .what the data is.. We gave this many Jabs .. and this was the number of SAR in X days from Moderna .. this was the number from pfizer .. take the average .. was 1 in 800.

You may fool some of the people some of the time with the fancy spaghetti on wall fallacy but not this Chemist - Microbiologist - Research Scientist.

 

As indicated, relying on one study and ignoring supplementary and field data smacks of a desperate attempt to cherry-pick, just to create the impression that the vaccine is some horrific thing!

Paraphrasing Jonathan Swift and so true of nearly all conspiracy theorists. I am not aware of a single one who has ever altered such a position